Gay TV, Movies, and Books

[Zombie]

46 minutes ago, W_L said:

@Zombie

Gay comedies or dramedies movies are also poorly casted and acted a lot. Yes I love snark and wit along with overacting characters, but when your joke is a stereotype, it falls flat after a few scenes.

Even classics like The Birdcage hasn't aged well due to stereotypes of LGBT people. Love the situational comedy, but cringe at the stilted acting. 

Even with happy endings, these movies deliver a lot of cringe acting and scenes.

this deserves in-depth study, because there’s some really old stuff where not only does this trope not exist (excluding prejudice, discrimination or even outright hatred which is OK because these are still very real) but there are great actors and great scripts too, eg

- My Beautiful Launderette, 1985 (Daniel Day-Lewis)

- Sunday Bloody Sunday, 1971 (Glenda Jackson, Peter Finch, also Daniel Day-Lewis again - in his very first movie, as a boy)

- The Lost Language of Cranes, 1991 (Brian Cox)

..all worth catching if you can, plus more modern stuff already mentioned here like God’s Own Country

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Zombie

[Ron]

On 12/1/2023 at 2:52 PM, Joie J. said:

New movie recommendation alert

I’ve watched the movie and I thought it was darn good. 👍🏻 

In fact I looked for it after I removed it from my watch list just so I could post it here but I couldn’t remember the name of it, or where I watched it. 

[Ron]

8 hours ago, Zombie said:

straight romance flicks usually deliver the happy ending, gay movies rarely do. Why is that?

Well, for this movie I think we must consider the time it took place. But I know what you’re saying and I feel that way too. Of course, we do get the comedies.🙄

Edited December 8, 2023 by Ron

[Krista]

Mainstream filmmakers and showrunners will always attempt to have a platform with their art, that has been going on for generations in film. They 'want' people to be more hyperaware of social injustices and issues. One can argue there has been a bit of a hijacking of media to the point where the impact is lost and all that. Not the place for it though, really, so I won't get too deep into that. 

I do not think Comedy and Horror has been good genres for Gay centered story telling, shows, etc. Bros being the primary and most glaring example of Comedy, as it was marketed as a Romantic comedy. It failed... and it mostly failed with its own target audiences. I read articles where the LGBT+ community had more problems with the film than heterosexuals who saw it. And most Gay-centered Horrors are just low-budget gorefests... because the low-budget gorefests it is mirroring are also awful... in a, 'I just can't look away...' way. I can't stand stuff like that.

I have said this before, and will continue to say it: Smaller productions, independently funded, and/or foreign markets are the places to go for quality gay films/shows. The nice middle ground between big budget films, and art school student projects films.   American mainstream will never hold my attention. I've liked some of them as one-off viewings, like Brokeback Mountain, and Call me by... whatever the rest of that is, Milk, Moonlight, etc but I've never went back to them. Shelter, Latter Days, The Way He Looks, Gods Own Country, Boys, Angels of Sex, Free Fall, the list is endless I can name hundreds and none of them will be backed by Hollywood. 

[W_L]

11 hours ago, Zombie said:

this deserves in-depth study, because there’s some really old stuff where not only does this trope not exist (excluding prejudice, discrimination or even outright hatred which is OK because these are still very real) but there are great actors and great scripts too, eg

- My Beautiful Launderette, 1985 (Daniel Day-Lewis)

- Sunday Bloody Sunday, 1971 (Glenda Jackson, Peter Finch, also Daniel Day-Lewis again - in his very first movie, as a boy)

- The Lost Language of Cranes, 1991 (Brian Cox)

..all worth catching if you can, plus more modern stuff already mentioned here like God’s Own Country

 

 

Queer Film studies do exist, I wish I am still in university to take it as an elective, but alas, 2000s only had simple overviews on LGBT films and culture.

The Birdcage from 1996 had good actors and, for its time, it was a good movie that explored various themes that were far ahead of the mainstream, i.e. Gay Parents and Normalization issues. However, despite Robin Williams and Nathan Lane (who is openly gay) being superb actors, it feeds into stereotypes about gay/bi males. Nathan Lane being in drag for most of the movie along with the oblivious conservatives being in a gay dance club, but after a few scenes, it went downhill. Robin Williams gained fame for his comedic timing as Mrs. Doubtfire in 1993, but he was very subdued in the movie with few jokes or comedic zingers. In contrast, Nathan Lane being openly gay was overly flamboyant and tried to carry every joke with the idea that he was impersonating a woman. They didn't feel right in their acting or behavior.

Now in comparison to another comedy of the same era, In and Out from 1997, which I thought was a better comedy portraying a gay man's discovery of his sexuality, dealing with themes of social acceptance, and at the same time having unbelievable plot twists, comedic moments, and turns. Kevin Kline and Tom Sellick may not be gay, but they played their gay characters very well. It was funny without being stereotypical and dramatic with hard issues like discrimination at the workplace for your sexuality. That's comedy that doesn't rely on "Oh look it's gay".

My point to you @Zombie is that there can be really bad issues in gay comedies as well. For every good comedy and dramedy with LGBT themes, there are also some innocuously bad ones too even with great actors who have played LGBT characters or are in our community. 

-----------

For me, the late 90s was the beginning of mainstreaming for LGBT-films out of the film festivals/small screen and into movie theaters with wide distributions. There are a lot of international films that we can explore beyond US/UK, from Brazil to Taiwan, there's no shortage of LGBT films.

[Joie J.]

Hope this one doesn't disappoint by being just another gore-with-tension 🤞🤞

 

[Guest]

Okay, vampire edition (just because)

I want to hear your thoughts on the following topic - which adaptation did it better, and why? (Book vs film) - no judgement!

"Interview with the Vampire" - Anne Rice vs Neil Jordan

"Bram Stoker's Dracula - Bram Stoker vs Francis Ford Coppola 

"Talented Mr Ripley" - Patricia Higsmith vs Anthony Minghella

 

All of the books are great, with undertones of homosexuality - all, have inspiring and artistic approach to filmmaking and crafting the word into a "real world" experience. 

Back in the early 2000 when I first saw "Talented Mr Ripley" - I was not familiar with the book... so my impression of the work was deeply crafted by Minghella's script and Matt Damon's acting. Seeing it from perspective - I think - it deserves a spot as one of the best adaptations. 

"The Interview With the Vampire" - book is great and all - but the script (by Anne may I add) brought the story into life and made me fall in love with Lestat...:)

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" - the book structure, as a 19th century correspondence and a diary is unique. Coppola took it up, and created not only a beautiful and mesmerizing love story, but also a tribute to the cinema...

We could add up couple of Stephen King's book - but it's up to you?

13 hours ago, W_L said:

Queer Film studies do exist, I wish I am still in university to take it as an elective, but alas, 2000s only had simple overviews on LGBT films and culture.

The Birdcage from 1996 had good actors and, for its time, it was a good movie that explored various themes that were far ahead of the mainstream, i.e. Gay Parents and Normalization issues. However, despite Robin Williams and Nathan Lane (who is openly gay) being superb actors, it feeds into stereotypes about gay/bi males. Nathan Lane being in drag for most of the movie along with the oblivious conservatives being in a gay dance club, but after a few scenes, it went downhill. Robin Williams gained fame for his comedic timing as Mrs. Doubtfire in 1993, but he was very subdued in the movie with few jokes or comedic zingers. In contrast, Nathan Lane being openly gay was overly flamboyant and tried to carry every joke with the idea that he was impersonating a woman. They didn't feel right in their acting or behavior.

Now in comparison to another comedy of the same era, In and Out from 1997, which I thought was a better comedy portraying a gay man's discovery of his sexuality, dealing with themes of social acceptance, and at the same time having unbelievable plot twists, comedic moments, and turns. Kevin Kline and Tom Sellick may not be gay, but they played their gay characters very well. It was funny without being stereotypical and dramatic with hard issues like discrimination at the workplace for your sexuality. That's comedy that doesn't rely on "Oh look it's gay".

 

-----------

For me, the late 90s was the beginning of mainstreaming for LGBT-films out of the film festivals/small screen and into movie theaters with wide distributions. There are a lot of international films that we can explore beyond US/UK, from Brazil to Taiwan, there's no shortage of LGBT films.

I  remember watching "The Birdcage" back in Poland, when I was in the closet... the film seemed way ahead of it's time. To a lot of people it portrayed gays as per a stereotype. When it comes to a conservative country this does not make it any easier for the gay men, though...

It was "In and Out" which in my eyes, did much better to showcase love and was far more subtle, yet effective in displaying the complexity of love and coming out...

Sometimes "baby steps" and "less is more" approach works much better...:)

[Ron]

This is a great version of IWTV. I’ve watched the first season and the second season is expected sometime next year. It would be a shame not to continue the series but it’s always a possibility considering the way the powers in control of these things throw things away, as they do.

Of course, both the movie and this series take liberties with the source material but I like them all. Because the media is different for each of them they are able to stand on their own for entertainment value while also each having its own nuance of story and dialogue furthering the narrative of the story. I think we all win here.

[W_L]

@Dariusz Alexander

Best Stephen King Film Adaptation:

For me it was Shawshank Redemption which was taken from Stephen King's Anthology of short stories, Different Seasons. This series of short stories also brought two other films Apt Pupil and Stand by Me, it's a testament to the writer and screenwriter adapting the source material that these stories could be expanded into full movies that have a lasting impact on people.

Now in terms of the LGBT themes, there's a subtle romance between Red and Andy, along with the notorious issue of prison rape. Additionally, the theme soundtrack for this movie was used in Brokeback Mountain by Ang Lee.

Edited December 10, 2023 by W_L

[Ron]

Have any of you watched 'Hit the Floor'? I saw a scene from the series, and it looked interesting.

[Krista]

9 hours ago, Ron said:

Have any of you watched 'Hit the Floor'? I saw a scene from the series, and it looked interesting.

That's the Dance/Basketball Drama/Mystery, right? It is on Prime at the moment. I watched it when it first aired on VH1, I got 1 and 1/2 seasons into it before I had enough.

The writing is awful. Most of the characters are unlikable people, and the ones that are likable end up being not who they claim to be, which ends in a swift heel turn. Or they are so overlooked by all the stupid chaos that you forget them entirely. There is a bisexual professional athlete character, and a gay sports agent, and for the most part, from the parts I've watched, those two characters become the least blameless? But, like I said... most of the characters are flawed to the point where you want most of them not to succeed.

You can also literally skip entire episodes and fall back into the plot easily, because it is just that predictable.

I am rather picky though, you may enjoy it. The bodies on display are attractive though, I will give it that. 

Edited January 17 by Krista

[LJCC]

On 12/9/2023 at 4:39 PM, W_L said:

Queer Film studies do exist, I wish I am still in university to take it as an elective, but alas, 2000s only had simple overviews on LGBT films and culture.

The Birdcage from 1996 had good actors and, for its time, it was a good movie that explored various themes that were far ahead of the mainstream, i.e. Gay Parents and Normalization issues. However, despite Robin Williams and Nathan Lane (who is openly gay) being superb actors, it feeds into stereotypes about gay/bi males. Nathan Lane being in drag for most of the movie along with the oblivious conservatives being in a gay dance club, but after a few scenes, it went downhill. Robin Williams gained fame for his comedic timing as Mrs. Doubtfire in 1993, but he was very subdued in the movie with few jokes or comedic zingers. In contrast, Nathan Lane being openly gay was overly flamboyant and tried to carry every joke with the idea that he was impersonating a woman. They didn't feel right in their acting or behavior.

Now in comparison to another comedy of the same era, In and Out from 1997, which I thought was a better comedy portraying a gay man's discovery of his sexuality, dealing with themes of social acceptance, and at the same time having unbelievable plot twists, comedic moments, and turns. Kevin Kline and Tom Sellick may not be gay, but they played their gay characters very well. It was funny without being stereotypical and dramatic with hard issues like discrimination at the workplace for your sexuality. That's comedy that doesn't rely on "Oh look it's gay".

Stereotypical comedy has its roots because there are stereotypical gay people out there who are loud, campy, and proud of who they are. They certainly exist and are the first prime example to be given avenues in the media because, as you've said, they're obviously out, loud, campy, and proud of who they are. It doesn't help that the straights have a difficult time seeing two very masculine men being gay (living in that period). The majority of the media is centered around loud homosexuals, but that's just the trajectory of that decade—the 90s. And if you think about it, our loud, campy, and flamboyantly expressed gay friends paved the way for movies like Brokeback Mountain or other heteronormative-centric films focusing on homosexuality to exist.

And it's not that Nathan Lane was impersonating a woman; it was his job to impersonate a woman since the role was addressed as a drag queen, whose job it was to exemplify feminity and grace.

And I watched In and Out at the cinemas. I think I was 10 when we watched it in the movies. My cousin brought me in, and the ticket checker let a minor inside for some reason (because I didn't look like a minor at 10. Haha). It was the first time I'd seen two men kiss. I was surprised and elated. I had a huge crush on Kevin Klein at that young age. Then it quickly shifted to 14-year-old Henry Cavill when he played a role in The Count of Monte Christo.

I was like, "Who's this gorgeous bastard, my god!"

He's like a frigging oil painting come to life.

 

[LJCC]

3 hours ago, Krista said:

That's the Dance/Basketball Drama/Mystery, right? It is on Prime at the moment. I watched it when it first aired on VH1, I got 1 and 1/2 seasons into it before I had enough.

The writing is awful. Most of the characters are unlikable people, and the ones that are likable end up being not who they claim to be, which ends in a swift heel turn. Or they are so overlooked by all the stupid chaos that you forget them entirely. There is a bisexual professional athlete character, and a gay sports agent, and for the most part, from the parts I've watched, those two characters become the least blameless? But, like I said... most of the characters are flawed to the point where you want most of them not to succeed.

You can also literally skip entire episodes and fall back into the plot easily, because it is just that predictable.

I am rather picky though, you may enjoy it. The bodies on display are attractive though, I will give it that. 

I only watched their relationship cutscenes (the sex-cutscenes of Zero and the brawny hot gay sports agent), and all I can say is that those sex scenes...ARE MINT, and really hot. The acting is shite, but those sex scenes are NOT...shite.

It's not pornographic, but it was steaming, piping hot. The way they gazed at each other, I was like, shit...I'm so single.

Just look at the video's views. It's around 22 million. The gays and the girls have spoken.

When I first watched this, I was like, "Are they banging each other in real life? Cause I've boned someone in a coat checkroom once, and it wasn't this passionate the last time I checked."

It's somewhat sad that the actor for the blonde character Zero stopped returning to the series due to his religious background. I mean, he was sticking his imaginary peen into someone's bunghole and literally eating a man's face on television. It makes you question why he took the role for a reason.

See, this is why religion is evil. It prevents actors like him from fulfilling their destiny by thumping brawny men in a television series for our consumption and lusty minds.

Edited January 17 by LJCC

[Ron]

6 hours ago, LJCC said:

I only watched their relationship cutscenes (the sex-cutscenes of Zero and the brawny hot gay sports agent), and all I can say is that those sex scenes...ARE MINT, and really hot.

See, this is why I wondered if the series was worth watching. But, thanks to you and @Krista I am not going to waste time on it. 

[Zombie]

7 hours ago, Ron said:

See, this is why I wondered if the series was worth watching. But, thanks to you and @Krista I am not going to waste time on it. 

good to know that the readership here at GA is interested only in quality scripts acting and production, not intense hot steamy sex scenes with big brawny piping hot sports guys going at it  

[Ron]

33 minutes ago, Zombie said:

good to know that the readership here at GA is interested only in quality scripts acting and production, not intense hot steamy sex scenes with big brawny piping hot sports guys going at it  

Not only, but a lot of us are also men of discerning taste. I like to think of myself as being one of those discerning men, at least in public. 

[LJCC]

I'm going to defend that the scenes of Zero and the brawny hot bottom agent (Jude) were Day of Our Lives levels of acting good. It's actually the only good thing in the series; none of the other characters and their stories come to mind. 

I watched their entire storyline in four hours several years ago, since they had parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Daily Motion, but parts 1 and 3 are now taken off—probably copystriked.

Also, Adam Senn is 39 and looks like this. He was in a lifetime movie about cowboys and one crazy horny chick. This man is aging like wine. His tiddies are so perky? Why? I want to flick it.

And Brent Antonello's not a chonky, jiggly, bottom-bloke anymore:


He became like 99.9% like the rest of white America. It was truly a sad day for chonky-thick bum chasers out there, like moi.

I might actually use these two as sexpiration for the next novel I have in mind. 

[W_L]

16 hours ago, Zombie said:

good to know that the readership here at GA is interested only in quality scripts acting and production, not intense hot steamy sex scenes with big brawny piping hot sports guys going at it  

 

15 hours ago, Ron said:

Not only, but a lot of us are also men of discerning taste. I like to think of myself as being one of those discerning men, at least in public. 

Don't get me wrong though a hot steamy locker room confrontation scene is glorious, with testosterone in the air, naked bodies, and a taste of team spirit along with homoerotic desires to make your opponents submit to you. There's a reason why sports-based gay male stories have worked for three thousand years, you just need to remember the primal urges that make that genre work.

Edited January 18 by W_L

[TetRefine]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned but... American Horror Story: NYC was very well done, and hit on so many gay themes that (while taking place in the 80s and being a foreshadow of AIDS) still very much resonate. The last episode left me absolutely terrified and sad.

I talked to a lot of friends about it, and what we all found so unsettling was realizing the fact that all the tragedy in the last few episodes would have been us had we come of age in the 80s. It was only by pure chance that we were born when we were, because if we hadn't then all of us would be going into a coffin with them.

Something from Hollywood hasn't made me feel that kind of way in a long, long time. 

Edited January 23 by TetRefine

[Ron]

I skimmed through the posts, and no one has mentioned "House of Flowers" on Netflix. This series is hilarious, camp, full of stupid-funny intrigue, includes nearly the whole GLBTQ++ gamut, and is darn right fun to watch. The show has subtitles, and it is a comic soap opera (there's no getting around that fact), but I found it so enjoyable to watch. If you're looking for something in an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink vein it's must-see. There have also been two movies made after the series so, I'm guessing, it was a popular series with its intended audience (it was for me).

Mindless comic entertainment of the highest order!!

Edit to add: I'm watching the series for the second time, now, and I don't recommend watching the previews. I was going to include a preview for the first season, but it gives too much away, and it's confusing to watch without context.

Edited January 23 by Ron

[W_L]

3 hours ago, TetRefine said:

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned but... American Horror Story: NYC was very well done, and hit on so many gay themes that (while taking place in the 80s and being a foreshadow of AIDS) still very much resonate. The last episode left me absolutely terrified and sad.

I talked to a lot of friends about it, and what we all found so unsettling was realizing the fact that all the tragedy in the last few episodes would have been us had we come of age in the 80s. It was only by pure chance that we were born when we were, because if we hadn't then all of us would be going into a coffin with them.

Something from Hollywood hasn't made me feel that kind of way in a long, long time. 

I agree, sadly Ryan Murphy as creator of AHS didn't get any awards for that season. He's one of the few mainstream openly gay showrunners in Hollywood, who handles LGBT themes a lot in his work. AHS was great when he was showrunner (Current season without him called Delicate is just too on the nose for my taste), along with his older shoes like Glee (A show that a lot of LGBT American viewers have at least a passing knowledge). Still, I think he was heavy-handed with Jeffrey Dahmer's biopic series (Good if you like true crime and are weary of the random hookup scene). 

Edited January 23 by W_L

[Ron]

There is a HGTV show called 'Battle on the Mountain' streaming on MAX which stars renovators Stephen and David St. Russel, a married couple from MA. The link takes you to a free article in The Boston Globe about the couple and the show.

Edited January 25 by Ron

[Guest]

I am very excited to see how Andrew Scott is "blowing up" in the movie industry recently. He is such a talented actor, and truly a genuine guy. I am yet to see the "All of us strangers" - though I probably will wait until it is available on my streaming service. 

That saying - I stumbled on the news he is playing Tom Ripley in the new TV series adaptation of Highsmith books titled "Ripley", coming soon to Netflix. To add to my excitement - it is directed by Steven Zaillian - who has a number of films under his belt. 

I will most certainly be counting the days, to the premiere with the hope that Anthony Minghella's legacy is not destroyed...:)

 

Edited January 26 by Dariusz Alexander

[Guest]

On 1/26/2024 at 5:32 AM, Dariusz Alexander said:

I am very excited to see how Andrew Scott is "blowing up" in the movie industry recently. He is such a talented actor, and truly a genuine guy. I am yet to see the "All of us strangers" - though I probably will wait until it is available on my streaming service. 

 

 

I just came back from a cinema after my best friend convinced me to see it..

This film was amazing! 

I am so glad to experience this story the way it was intended to be - so much emotion, longing, grief and the everlasting message of the "Power of Love"...

Beautiful... 

At one point I was watching a scene where Andrew Scott transforms himself into a 12 year old kid in a matter of single, split second - only with his eyes and smile... this is a genius acting! This guy!...💘

Claire Foy -  she is a bold and great young actress who took on the "Crown", but here...

She gave here a performance of her career so far! She is a loving mother, tender, concerned and above all loving her son... just like her husband played by Jamie Bell.

And finally the character of Harry (Paul Mescal).. Electrifying, captivating and sensual... yet vulnerable, loving and tender...  I am lost for words to explain how great is he, here... 

I had tears in my eyes, on one or more occasions tonight - this film "touched" something deep inside me, the loss of loved ones, the sense of loneliness in a big city where we fear connection and miss opportunities to express that feeling, when we have a chance... 

This film is so much more - it is incredibly well done, beautiful piece of cinema with impeccable cast, acting, score and cinematography! You need to watch it! 

 

Edited January 30 by Dariusz Alexander

[Joie J.]

On 1/31/2024 at 4:11 AM, Dariusz Alexander said:

I just came back from a cinema after my best friend convinced me to see it..

This film was amazing! 

I am so glad to experience this story the way it was intended to be - so much emotion, longing, grief and the everlasting message of the "Power of Love"...

Beautiful... 

At one point I was watching a scene where Andrew Scott transforms himself into a 12 year old kid in a matter of single, split second - only with his eyes and smile... this is a genius acting! This guy!...💘

Claire Foy -  she is a bold and great young actress who took on the "Crown", but here...

She gave here a performance of her career so far! She is a loving mother, tender, concerned and above all loving her son... just like her husband played by Jamie Bell.

And finally the character of Harry (Paul Mescal).. Electrifying, captivating and sensual... yet vulnerable, loving and tender...  I am lost for words to explain how great is he, here... 

I had tears in my eyes, on one or more occasions tonight - this film "touched" something deep inside me, the loss of loved ones, the sense of loneliness in a big city where we fear connection and miss opportunities to express that feeling, when we have a chance... 

This film is so much more - it is incredibly well done, beautiful piece of cinema with impeccable cast, acting, score and cinematography! You need to watch it! 

 

Hmm...I don't know. For me, All Of Us Strangers was a 7/10 and I'll tell you way.

First, Let me tell you about the things I liked - every scene were Andrew Scott interacted with his parents. Each of those scenes were brilliantly written. Also, they were effective tear jerkers.

Few lines from Andrew, cut me so deep! For example, when Andrew told his mother, "I'm not lonely because I'm gay."

Or when Andrew's mother asked if he were heckled in the streets for being gay and he said, it's not like that anymore; that no one says anything on street because he's gay. But then he took a pause and said, "some streets maybe."

Oh and Andrew's conversations with his father - oh my god, I sobbed for 2 minutes straight. 😭

Also I liked how they kept the conversations in real time - the parents were taking updates on the world from Andrew.

These are the things I liked and hence I gave the 7. But now, here are the nays for me....

First; the selection of colour palette, especially in the initial scenes. The use of red inside Andrew's apartment and electric blue outside his window were unnecessary and not much appealing. Even in terms of cinematography, the camera work wasn't really enhancing the heavy emotional subject matter.

Secondly, Paul Mescal's character wasn't well written. Harry's story felt like a last minute addition to cater to the requests from the studio. I didn't much care for Harry or his relationship with Andrew except for the one moment when we were provided with the information that Harry basically died of loneliness (and overdose, but you get my point).

Thirdly, and this isn't too important of a point but still....the way media talked about Andrew and Paul's intimate scenes in the movie - I ended up very much disappointed. I'm not saying this because the scenes weren't enough erotic for me but because I didn't sense the intimacy between the two of them. Their love making seemed heavily scripted and clinical.

Hence I chopped off 3 points.

 

P.S. If you liked this movie so much, I have a recommendation for you. Watch Close (2022). It's not a queer film, not exactly. But it will hit home. Hope you'll like it.